Two carriers ordered to stop exempting their own TV services from caps.

Share this story

Two wireless carriers in Canada have been ordered to stop exempting their mobile TV services from data caps in a ruling that targets discrimination against competing online video services.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) issued the ruling today against wireless carriers Bell Mobility and Videotron, which each offered mobile TV services and exempted them from data caps. The country's telecommunications law "prohibits Canadian carriers from conferring an undue disadvantage to others, or an undue preference to itself or others," the commission said. "Bell Mobility and Videotron have given an undue preference in favour of subscribers of their respective mobile TV services, as well as in favour of their own services, and have subjected consumers of other audiovisual content services, and other services, to a corresponding undue disadvantage."

Further Reading

The commission directed Bell "to eliminate its unlawful practice with respect to data charges for its mobile TV service" by April 29, 2015. Videotron must confirm by March 31 that it has completed the withdrawal of its TV app from BlackBerry and Android phones, "thereby removing any undue preference for its mobile TV service, and ensure that any new mobile TV service complies with the determinations set out in this decision."

Bell and Videotron each charged subscribers monthly and hourly fees to view video on their mobile devices, but customers could watch as much as they wanted without getting charged for more data. Videotron is a cable company but also offers wireless service outside of its cable territory.

"The case arose from a complaint filed by Ben Klass, a graduate student, who noted that Bell offers a $5 per month mobile TV service that allows users to watch dozens of Bell-owned or licensed television channels for ten hours without affecting their data cap," University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist wrote today. "By comparison, users accessing the same online video through a third-party service such as Netflix would be on the hook for a far more expensive data plan since all of the data usage would count against their monthly cap. Videotron was later added to the case, based on similar concerns with its mobile television service."

Bell argued that it was subject to broadcast regulation instead of telecom regulation, but the CRTC "ruled that mobile television services effectively invoke both broadcast and telecom regulation, since a data connection is required to access the service," Geist wrote.

ISPs can't be turned into dumb pipes soon enough. Happens in several other "network" industries. For instance, in the EU you can't generate electricity, transport it and sell it through one company - they forced former incumbents to unbundle these activities. It only makes sense to prevent these undue advantages to the network owner/operator's own content.

I initially interpreted the headline as indicating that data caps were not capable of being used to impede competition, rather than that they should be banned from doing so, and was going to be kinda depressed.

Reading Ben Klass' blog had me laughing at the absurdity of our telecom industry. Here is one quote:

Quote:

I got to hear the former advisor to Industry Minister Maxime Bernier say things like “cell phones are like shoes, so regulation is really just socialism run wild” [emphasis mine] and “we wanted to abolish the CRTC 10 years ago” (The same CRTC that’s bringing us the consumer-friendly Wireless Code). I got to hear Jeffrey Church from the University of Calgary talk about how we should just keep using trickle down economics, because we’ve already got too much competition in the Canadian wireless market.

Sigh, I really wish Verizon had entered our market and annihilated the other telecom companies, so the masses could see how little had changed from the situation we are currently in.

Breaking news: grocery stores no longer allowed to sell store brands at a reduced price -- must price-match name brands. Film at 11.

Not even close and you know it.

Indeed. The supermarket doesn't produce their in-house brands, they pay someone else to produce and supply them to the supermarket. A better example would be the United Aircraft Corporation, which both built airliners and operated airline service (in addition to gouging the Federal Government by overcharging for airmail services). The United Aircraft Corporation, of course, was busted up into three smaller companies, to include Boeing and United Airlines.

Good. Now we need to eliminate carriers offering exclusive content and we can get back to the business of just paying for usage.

I might change "usage" to "access". The Internet is a live wire, after all, and I'm a little depressed seeing this use of the word usage. You don't fill a tank with it. The Internet - is a "connected" experience. "Using" it is a contrived "fisting for funds" model.

Breaking news: grocery stores no longer allowed to sell store brands at a reduced price -- must price-match name brands. Film at 11.

Not even close and you know it.

Indeed. The supermarket doesn't produce their in-house brands, they pay someone else to produce and supply them to the supermarket. A better example would be the United Aircraft Corporation, which both built airliners and operated airline service (in addition to gouging the Federal Government by overcharging for airmail services). The United Aircraft Corporation, of course, was busted up into three smaller companies, to include Boeing and United Airlines.

The supermarket analogy works, but only if you also say that "you are only allowed to buy enough food to feed one person for a day, per week. Unless you buy the store brand, in which case the buffet is around the corner. Go knock yourself out."

That's essentially what it is. If you watch Comcast's streaming video service, you can watch untold terabytes of whatever. Youtube or Netflix, on the other hand, uses data.

Breaking news: grocery stores no longer allowed to sell store brands at a reduced price -- must price-match name brands. Film at 11.

Not even close and you know it.

Indeed. The supermarket doesn't produce their in-house brands, they pay someone else to produce and supply them to the supermarket. A better example would be the United Aircraft Corporation, which both built airliners and operated airline service (in addition to gouging the Federal Government by overcharging for airmail services). The United Aircraft Corporation, of course, was busted up into three smaller companies, to include Boeing and United Airlines.

The supermarket analogy works, but only if you also say that "you are only allowed to buy enough food to feed one person for a day, per week. Unless you buy the store brand, in which case the buffet is around the corner. Go knock yourself out."

That's essentially what it is. If you watch Comcast's streaming video service, you can watch untold terabytes of whatever. Youtube or Netflix, on the other hand, uses data.

...And most people have only one grocery store they're able to shop at in their area, since it's been granted a monopoly to provide grocery services in town.

Breaking news: grocery stores no longer allowed to sell store brands at a reduced price -- must price-match name brands. Film at 11.

Not even close and you know it.

Indeed. The supermarket doesn't produce their in-house brands, they pay someone else to produce and supply them to the supermarket. A better example would be the United Aircraft Corporation, which both built airliners and operated airline service (in addition to gouging the Federal Government by overcharging for airmail services). The United Aircraft Corporation, of course, was busted up into three smaller companies, to include Boeing and United Airlines.

These carriers don't produce what they're redistributing either. In that way they're pretty much the same (as in my joke scenario).

Breaking news: grocery stores no longer allowed to sell store brands at a reduced price -- must price-match name brands. Film at 11.

Not even close and you know it.

All joking aside... just so we're clear, I view caps as just another form of theft of service (the second favorite pastime of many ISPs)--you've paid for service, so you should be able to use what you've paid for. However, if an ISP is providing content from its network, then it really shouldn't be subject to any caps the ISP uses for counting bits delivered to/from the Internet (traffic which crosses their peering points). One can logically assume that their "normal" TV services are being directed from their own networks and not coming from off-network (such as a customer's typical Internet traffic). In such cases it really isn't "Internet traffic" at all (which supposedly is what some/many ISPs claim the caps are all about). What's the favorite pastime of so many ISPs? ...lying to their customers (or is it over-billing?).

ISPs can't be turned into dumb pipes soon enough. Happens in several other "network" industries. For instance, in the EU you can't generate electricity, transport it and sell it through one company - they forced former incumbents to unbundle these activities. It only makes sense to prevent these undue advantages to the network owner/operator's own content.

Ah yes, free the market, but be aware of unintendended consequences.The forced electricity unbundling thing happened in Ontario, Canada too. Now they have three incumbents, each with an extremely well paid CEO by the way, no competition and electrical bills are roughly double what they used to be when one company ran it all. And since neither of the three makes enough money, alone, to justify big infrastructure investments the infrastructure is slowly decaying leading to more brownouts, and higher maintenance costs. Fantastic. How is this is a win for the consumers again?

Breaking news: grocery stores no longer allowed to sell store brands at a reduced price -- must price-match name brands. Film at 11.

Not even close and you know it.

All joking aside... just so we're clear, I view caps as just another form of theft of service (the second favorite pastime of many ISPs)--you've paid for service, so you should be able to use what you've paid for. However, if an ISP is providing content from its network, then it really shouldn't be subject to any caps the ISP uses for counting bits delivered to/from the Internet (traffic which crosses their peering points). One can logically assume that their "normal" TV services are being directed from their own networks and not coming from off-network (such as a customer's typical Internet traffic). In such cases it really isn't "Internet traffic" at all (which supposedly is what some/many ISPs claim the caps are all about). What's the favorite pastime of so many ISPs? ...lying to their customers (or is it over-billing?).

Please define "their network" because unless the ISP owns all the copper between streaming server and your switch, it's not "their network" all the way is it? Bell is just absorbing the incremental cost into the their streaming service prices.

Sigh, I really wish Verizon had entered our market and annihilated the other telecom companies, so the masses could see how little had changed from the situation we are currently in.

Yes and no. If it was on equal footing sure. But CRTC wanted to let Verizon acquire spectrum at a rate far lower than incumbents. The purpose of that regulation was to encourage new entrants to begin competing. Not to allow huge corporations from the States to buy spectrum at a discount they neither need or deserve.

In the end, there is nothing stopping Verizon from setting up shop in Canada, they just don't get a fire sale on the spectrum.

I don't know about other agencies but the CRTC has been knocking it out of the park recently. Here is a list of some of their rulings:1) Local-loop unbundling2) Banning 3 year cell-phone contracts3) Banning 30 day notice requirements on canceling cable contracts,4) $50 cap on data over-limit charges $100 cap on international roaming charges5) Forcing carriers to unlock phones after 90 days if they are subsidized and 0 days if they are fully paid.

I don't know about other agencies but the CRTC has been knocking it out of the park recently. Here is a list of some of their rulings:1) Local-loop unbundling2) Banning 3 year cell-phone contracts3) Banning 30 day notice requirements on canceling cable contracts,4) $50 cap on data over-limit charges $100 cap on international roaming charges5) Forcing carriers to unlock phones after 90 days if they are subsidized and 0 days if they are fully paid.

If I meet a CRTC regulator someone is getting a beer!

Just out of curiosity, what's wrong w/ a three year cell-phone contract?

I don't know about other agencies but the CRTC has been knocking it out of the park recently. Here is a list of some of their rulings:1) Local-loop unbundling2) Banning 3 year cell-phone contracts3) Banning 30 day notice requirements on canceling cable contracts,4) $50 cap on data over-limit charges $100 cap on international roaming charges5) Forcing carriers to unlock phones after 90 days if they are subsidized and 0 days if they are fully paid.

If I meet a CRTC regulator someone is getting a beer!

Just out of curiosity, what's wrong w/ a three year cell-phone contract?

Basically Bell and Rogers (and Fido owned by rogers) offered much more expensive rates if you did not sign up for the 3 year contract even if you brought your own device. Forcing you to be locked in for 3 years. CRTC ruled that people should be free to change their minds or shop around for better rates even if they signed a contract. So they ruled 15 days to get out of contract with no penalty, if you brought your own device your termination fee is capped to $50 and if you got a subsidized device your termination fee is capped to value of device prorated for the remaining period of the contract and the contract can be no longer than 24 months. 2 years is still a long time but better than 3 years.

I don't know about other agencies but the CRTC has been knocking it out of the park recently. Here is a list of some of their rulings:1) Local-loop unbundling2) Banning 3 year cell-phone contracts3) Banning 30 day notice requirements on canceling cable contracts,4) $50 cap on data over-limit charges $100 cap on international roaming charges5) Forcing carriers to unlock phones after 90 days if they are subsidized and 0 days if they are fully paid.

If I meet a CRTC regulator someone is getting a beer!

But there has been a noted increase in cost of plans since that ban went into place, it'd be handy if they could work on pricing of cell phones too. Last I had checked (summer) most of the cell providers all had around the same pricing for the same plans, mix in that even for a bit of safety data say 500, you are likely paying in the range of 60+.

I don't know about other agencies but the CRTC has been knocking it out of the park recently. Here is a list of some of their rulings:1) Local-loop unbundling2) Banning 3 year cell-phone contracts3) Banning 30 day notice requirements on canceling cable contracts,4) $50 cap on data over-limit charges $100 cap on international roaming charges5) Forcing carriers to unlock phones after 90 days if they are subsidized and 0 days if they are fully paid.

If I meet a CRTC regulator someone is getting a beer!

Just out of curiosity, what's wrong w/ a three year cell-phone contract?

Basically Bell and Rogers (and Fido owned by rogers) offered much more expensive rates if you did not sign up for the 3 year contract even if you brought your own device. Forcing you to be locked in for 3 years. CRTC ruled that people should be free to change their minds or shop around for better rates even if they signed a contract. So they ruled 15 days to get out of contract with no penalty, if you brought your own device your termination fee is capped to $50 and if you got a subsidized device your termination fee is capped to value of device prorated for the remaining period of the contract and the contract can be no longer than 24 months. 2 years is still a long time but better than 3 years.

ISPs can't be turned into dumb pipes soon enough. Happens in several other "network" industries. For instance, in the EU you can't generate electricity, transport it and sell it through one company - they forced former incumbents to unbundle these activities. It only makes sense to prevent these undue advantages to the network owner/operator's own content.

Ah yes, free the market, but be aware of unintendended consequences.The forced electricity unbundling thing happened in Ontario, Canada too. Now they have three incumbents, each with an extremely well paid CEO by the way, no competition and electrical bills are roughly double what they used to be when one company ran it all. And since neither of the three makes enough money, alone, to justify big infrastructure investments the infrastructure is slowly decaying leading to more brownouts, and higher maintenance costs. Fantastic. How is this is a win for the consumers again?

Where I live in the US, the deregulated electric market consists of power providers, the utility (not deregulated), and retail electric providers. The REPs all include a charge for utility, and buy power from the power providers. There's data that shows that we're paying more than the parts of the state where the market is still regulated. But there's no clear indication that the grid (infrastructure) has suffered, likely because it's still regulated. It doesn't mean that deregulation can't work well, just that it has to be implemented properly.

I don't know about other agencies but the CRTC has been knocking it out of the park recently. Here is a list of some of their rulings:1) Local-loop unbundling2) Banning 3 year cell-phone contracts3) Banning 30 day notice requirements on canceling cable contracts,4) $50 cap on data over-limit charges $100 cap on international roaming charges5) Forcing carriers to unlock phones after 90 days if they are subsidized and 0 days if they are fully paid.

If I meet a CRTC regulator someone is getting a beer!

But there has been a noted increase in cost of plans since that ban went into place, it'd be handy if they could work on pricing of cell phones too. Last I had checked (summer) most of the cell providers all had around the same pricing for the same plans, mix in that even for a bit of safety data say 500, you are likely paying in the range of 60+.

You now actually get a $10 per month discount on all carriers if you bring your own device even if you sign no contract. This is a much better deal then before for people who had their own phones. I pay around $64 for 2GB of data and unlimited everything else. I used to pay 80+ for a similar plan a few years ago. Its still not as good as the US pricing but US has much more population density.

That's where you hit the spectrum problem. Wind Mobile is considerably cheaper but only works well(ish) in major cities. They do not have good spectrum for long range coverage and Canada is not very densely populated. If the CRTC passes fixed rate roaming charges on the carriers we would really see some competition as Wind mobile can work reliably over the incumbents network. This is impossible in the US political climate but may happen in the Canada.